J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[ACuriousPLAFan]

And whatever that rumoured mystery AAM that's exclusive to stealth fighters.

Isn't that the PL-16 (i.e. enhanced PL-15 without midbody fins/stabilizers that would allow 6x missiles per IWB)? Or is that an entirely different AAM?

 

[Amistrophy]

Isn't that PL-16 (i.e. enhanced PL-15 without midbody fins/stabilizers that would allow 6x missiles per IWB)? Or is that an entirely different AAM?

Here's the relevant discussion in missile thread, jump over there and take a look around this post.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on Twitter is claiming that according to "his sources", the PL-16:
1. Has a smaller diameter than that of PL-15's and next gen fighters can carry more of them in its IWBs.
2. Can handle BVR, WVR and anti-radiation missions.
3. Has a dual-mode seeker with dual-band radar and IR imaging.
4. Improved dual-pulse engine with a TVC nozzle.
5. Range exceeding 300kms, maximum speed exceeding Mach 5. (Obviously just speculation)

We already know that the PL-16 is going to be an improvement over its predecessor, but I'm wondering if some of these claims here are plausible instead of being complete bogus. Have any of y'all heard similar things from top PLA watchers?

If points 2 and 3 are true, then the PLA might be looking to merge the PL-10's mission profile into a multirole missile instead. Could explain why there aren't side IWBs for the J-XDS.

In summation, multipurpose missile building upon the PL-15 with improved kinematics and sensing. It may or may not be the same dimensions as the PL-15, havent heard much besides 6x can fit in an IWB (like newer versions of PL-15 folding fin)

There's also rumors of
1. Ramjet VLRAAM
2. Ballistic 1000km VLRAAM PL-17 successor

(If the new rumor is neither of these two, then I'd also like to hear more about it)

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Is the J-20 capable of carrying any ground attack or anti-ship missile in its internal bay?

 

[Atomicfrog]

According to open source simulations of shaping, J-20 indeed has slightly worse RCS than F-35. Stealth is 90% shaping and the rest RAM coating. Moreover, J-20 is bigger than F-35. The bigger the plane, the bigger the RCS will be naturally. So, I think it can be reasonably said that F-35 has smaller RCS than J-20.

But because J-20 is bigger, it has more power, more space to have a bigger radar and bigger EW capabilities. It also has a bigger so I guess superior IRST.

So, even if F-35 has smaller RCS, there is strong chance J-20 will detect F-35 earlier or almost the same time.

BVR combat is ofcourse more than just who detects who first. It also depends on tactics, numbers, terrain and many other factors. J-20 also has a bigger missile bay which can hold bigger missiles with more Range/No Escape zone. So, that can also determine who can shoot who first.

There is also a final factor which is J-20 has a canard delta design with a very narrow wing. Which means it will have much better supersonic speed and manuverability. Which should mean it will be a better dog fighter and also better at dodging BVR missiles.

Overall, I consider J-20 to be superior AA fighter to both F-35 and F-22.

J-20 also has a bigger range than both. So, overall China basically min-maxed to the fullest with J-20, making some compromises but overall a superior plane when all factors are considered.

J-20 is clearly more dedicated for air-superiority like the F-22 but 30+ years younger.

We tend to forget that the F-22 is multiple generations behind in processing power...its an 90s airplane after all. Its like comparing what I had for homecomputer more than 30years ago with what I have now...

Even with slightly bigger RCS compared to a new f-22 airframe, how can you calculate the facor in age difference... we have seen multiple pictures of F-22 rusted up. Composite materials to build J-20 are way younger too. J-20 airframe weight is probably a net advantage.

The F-35 have up to date electronics but is clearly more a jack of all trade. I would not class him in the same mission bracket anyway.

Comparing is a lame game.

 

[4Tran]

Is the J-20 capable of carrying any ground attack or anti-ship missile in its internal bay?

It is able to use PGMs so I'd assume that some can be carried internally. I doubt that the J-20 would ever be used for ground attack missions in a real fight so it probably doesn't matter much.

 

[TheWanderWit]

Is the J-20 capable of carrying any ground attack or anti-ship missile in its internal bay?

I don't think there's ever been any concrete proof of a J-20 carrying any offensive munitions in its IWBs, or somewhere stating the type of munitions it can carry in its IWBs, but it probably, very likely does have offensive ground attack capabilities. At the very minimum, can carry SDB-like munitions in its IWBs like the F-35 and F-22; if not externally as well.

 

[AndrewS]

It is able to use PGMs so I'd assume that some can be carried internally. I doubt that the J-20 would ever be used for ground attack missions in a real fight so it probably doesn't matter much.

We're looking at a fleet of about 1000 J-20 by 2030.

At that point, there should be spare J-20s for ground attack missions using SDBs.

And the number of J-20s will likely continue increasing after 2030

 

[4Tran]

We're looking at a fleet of about 1000 J-20 by 2030.

At that point, there should be spare J-20s for ground attack missions using SDBs.

And the number of J-20s will likely continue increasing after 2030

China doesn't fight expeditionary wars, and that's where ground attack is the most important. If the PLAAF has excess J-20s kicking around and nothing left to shoot down with AAMs, then they've already won the war. And they'll leave the ground attack to the aircraft that can carry more ordnance. There's just no reason to ever use J-20s in this role - just the the extra maintenance costs involved make it not worth it when there are other tools better suited to the job.

It's pretty much the same thing with F-22s. Sure then can drop bombs and they've done it in the past. But there's no reason to ever do so; especially if you're fighting someone who can fight back.

 

[AndrewS]

China doesn't fight expeditionary wars, and that's where ground attack is the most important. If the PLAAF has excess J-20s kicking around and nothing left to shoot down with AAMs, then they've already won the war. And they'll leave the ground attack to the aircraft that can carry more ordnance. There's just no reason to ever use J-20s in this role - just the the extra maintenance costs involved make it not worth it when there are other tools better suited to the job.

It's pretty much the same thing with F-22s. Sure then can drop bombs and they've done it in the past. But there's no reason to ever do so; especially if you're fighting someone who can fight back.

Well, I still see a role for a stealthy aircraft to deploy SDBs. Remember these are glide bombs with a 100km+ range.
At a minimum, this would be useful at the beginning of a high-intensity conflict in the First Island Chain

---

And in a wartime situation involving the First Island Chain, the faster than China wins, the better.
So if there are spare J-20s, I see the additional operating costs of deploying SDBs (for a few weeks?) as secondary.

---

There are so few F-22s that they really should be reserved only for air-to-air.

 

[qwerty3173]

Well, I still see a role for a stealthy aircraft to deploy SDBs. Remember these are glide bombs with a 100km+ range.
At a minimum, this would be useful at the beginning of a high-intensity conflict in the First Island Chain

---

And in a wartime situation involving the First Island Chain, the faster than China wins, the better.
So if there are spare J-20s, I see the additional operating costs of deploying SDBs (for a few weeks?) as secondary.

---

There are so few F-22s that they really should be reserved only for air-to-air.

100km range is pitiful in high intensity battles. It's within the no escape zone of contemporary area air defense systems. Rocket boosted glide bombs are the minimum to be useful.